Architectural integrity cannot have merely one definition. One might assume that any unique architect could produce a unique definition. Somehow, however, the term seems to surround the unending question—does form follow function or function follow form? Architect, and more famously, renderer Hugh Ferriss, shared his passion for architectural integrity through words and drawings. His theory that architectural integrity nests in the truth of structure as it is represented in form and materiality comes through in his specific reactions to early twentieth-century zoning and setback laws. In his Power in Buildings, Ferriss raises the question, “A new age brings new materials, new methods, and new purposes for building; can they be used to reassert, in new forms, an ancient architectural integrity (5)?” Posing such a question, Ferriss admits that like moral integrity, architectural integrity is something that can be lost unless commonly practiced. Ferriss praises Louis Sullivan’s ability to embrace his architectural integrity in the Wainwright Building design. Sullivan and his well-known student, Frank Lloyd Wright, sought to define American architectural style. Through his travels and documentation of architecture, Ferriss sought to uncover the ideals of ancient architecture in American design. Ferriss profoundly remarked that “effect follows form” (Mallgrave 157). This simple statement captures the ever-changing urban fabric and likewise, rural canvas, and the abilities of those environments to react to their forms—for better or worse.

Ferris worked as a delineator, preparing advertising and presentation drawings for other architects. Ferris had opportunities to capture the concepts and perhaps the romanticism of buildings—as opposed to the technicalities. However, the career involved a specific understanding of clients’ needs and expectations—and therefore a strong understanding of the American vernacular or at least the perceived or desired American vernacular. Ferriss explained that bridges, and similarly, dams, “exemplify the architectural problem of coming structural utility and structural beauty (23).” But why is Ferriss so invested in architectural integrity?

Broadly speaking, it has been our habit to assume that a building is a complete success if it provides for the utility, convenience and health of its occupants and, in addition, presents a pleasing exterior. But his frame of mind fails to appreciate that architectural forms necessarily have other values than the utilitarian or even others than those which we vaguely call the aesthetic. Without any doubt, these same forms quite specifically influence both the importance of principle…’Form follows Function.’ The axiom is not weakened by the further realization that Effect follows Form” (Mallgrave 157).

Ferriss brings this argument to his discussions of the 1922 zoning laws for building in New York City. In The New Architecture, although it was written prior to these statements, Ferriss recognizes the seemingly limiting setback laws as opportunities for the evolution of architectural style. The laws are the effects of the current, but unsuccessful, built and inhabited forms. He credits the ordinances with great significance: “We are not contemplating the new architecture of a city – we are contemplating the new architecture of a civilization (Mallgrave 151).” And so it must be asked: do the effects of those zoning laws and the contemplation of the “new architecture of a civilization” reflect in today’s conceptions of urban architecture? In short, yes—the ordinances produced the common, stepped, “wedding cake” buildings with desirable terraces that can be seen throughout cities today. These buildings yield their greatest profits from the use of the highest levels. Previously, upper floor spaces belonged to the services of buildings—but now house the wealthiest inhabitants. Sullivan predicted these shifts, specifically in the American style, even before Ferriss:

…as your basic thought changes will emerge a philosophy, a poetry, and an art of expression in all things: For you will have learned that a characteristic philosophy, poetry and art of expression are vital to the healthful growth and development of a democratic people (Mallgrave 134).

Sullivan’s words credit the changes in architecture to the changes in societal views.

In 1908, Frank Lloyd Wright wrote: “Conditions have changed; our ideal is Democracy, the highest possible expression of the individual as a unit not inconsistent with a harmonious whole (Mallgrave 135).” This perpetual reference to changing ideals continues through Ferriss’ written theories to today’s reality. Architectural integrity, though defined differently by different individuals, in general, encompasses the ideals of the time. To many in today’s professional environment, integrity may include designers’ responsibilities to the environment or to historic preservation. Both of these examples, among a number of others, relate to Sullivan’s famous statement “Form follows Function” and accordingly to Ferriss’ reaction that “Effect follow Form.” Design, use, and legislation of the built world by those who experience architecture validate these maxims daily. This returns to the notion that “Form follows Function” and “Effect follows Form” for better or for worse. To promote the functionality of a building, users must adapt their environments to accommodate their necessary functions. This could include replacing steps with ramps, adding sun shading devices, or replacing worn materials with lower-cost materials. Such changes can take away from the architect’s intent for the form. On a grander scale, in cities with ever-changing neighborhoods, buildings often transition from one function to another. Popularly, factory spaces, from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are being converted to living spaces. Is it possible to maintain harmony in building design and siting for buildings that change function? To maintain this harmony the original design intent must be uncovered, similarly to Ferriss’ efforts to reveal the formal intent upon which the American architectural vernacular was built. In cities with continuously growing legislation for building and continuously growing needs for change and rehabilitation, architects must embrace this challenge of seeking and embracing their predecessors’ design intents.

Works Cited:

Ferriss, Hugh. Power in Buildings. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953.

need to provide name of author of essay you are quoting, i.e. FLWright. He is the author, then put title of essay, in Mallgrave etc etc etc etcMallgrave, Harry Francis, and Christina Contandriopoulos, eds. Architectural Theory. “In the Cause of Architecture.” Malden: Blackwell, 2008.

same comment as above Mallgrave, Harry Francis, and Christina Contandriopoulos, eds. Architectural Theory. “What is Architecture? A Study in the American People of Today.” Malden: Blackwell, 2008.

summer 2010Culture of CongestionThe Approaches to Urbanism of Jane Jacobs and Rem Koolhaas

In a culture that fears the overpopulation of cities, few embrace this so-called issue as a depiction of success or even as an opportunity for yet greater successes. These few are not necessarily urbanists. They subscribe to the necessity to allow growth to be organic and adaptive. Jane Jacobs and Rem Koolhaas, in their own ways, chose to accept and exploit the urban fabric as a “culture of congestion.” Such congestion allows for the development of innovative spaces to be occupied by humanity.

Jacobs’ theories are rooted in the actions and habits of people. She describes this vividly in her discussions of planning of effective urban park spaces in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. “…in real life only diverse surroundings have the practical power of inducing a natural, continuing flow of life and use” (Jacobs 101). Jacobs prescribes that the planning of urban environments is rooted in humanity. Many of Jacobs' examples surround Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square; she credits its success to the multitude of diverse activities that the park and its surroundings sustain. Additionally, Jacobs details that the success of such an urban area is dependent on spaces’ abilities to meet the basic criteria that users seek: “intricacy, centering, sun and enclosure” (103).

Koolhaas also suggests that humanity adapts spaces to work as they are to fulfill people’s simplistic needs, as opposed to forcing them into new forms that architects may propose. In reference to Manhattan, he details:

Especially between 1890 and 1940 a new culture selected Manhattan as laboratory: a mythical island where the invention and testing of a metropolitan lifestyle and its attendant architecture could be pursued as a collective experiment in which the entire city became a factory of man-made experience, where the real and natural ceased to exist (Mallgrave 455).

As Koolhaas continues to design, his theories are sustained and continuously explored. The Guggenheim Las Vegas, designed by Koolhaas nearly ten years ago, embraces the theories documented in his 1978 Delirious New York by creating an untraditional space within what is decidedly a contrived setting, the city of Las Vegas. Effectively, he gives people what they want and does not deny the contrived-ness, but instead emphasizes it. Guggenheim Foundation director commented:

“The museum has to amake a very powerful statement that cuts right across the main themes of Las Vegas. If you see a city that has embraced artificiality, we will make something that is absolutely the opposite, a very aggressive, even brutal statement (Sudjie 2).

Koolhaas takes careful consideration to create exhibit spaces with bold architectural features and uses of materials and colors. This example may seem like an extreme duality in programming, a hotel-casino complex with a world-renowned museum of art, however, Koolhaas often proposes multi-programmatic schemes. He proposed to include hospital spaces for the homeless in the Seattle Public Library design. Adding diversity to a program engages variant groups and thus strengthens the interactions that will take place in the spaces.

Such interaction is exactly what Jacobs sought to protect in her testaments to urban living. While at first glance Jacobs’ theories seem bound against the grandeur of overly dramatic, modern uses of space, her theories merely attack poor uses of space, no matter what those uses may be. “The main responsibility of city planning and design should be to develop—insofar as public policy and action can do so—cities that are congenial places for this great range of unofficial plans, ideas, and opportunities to flourish, along with the flourishing of the public enterprises” (Jacobs 241). She speaks of these “unofficial plans” as the means of interactions of spaces, materials, and most importantly people. Jacobs is known as an activist for her New York neighborhood, Greenwich Village. Post-World War II urban renewal plans had included the demolition of the area, to make way for development and roads projects. These valued interactions, of people and processes, like those she experienced in Greenwich Village, are what fueled Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities. She argued that the development of such interactions results in the manufacture of various, necessary products that would in turn lead to the development of an effective division of labor and thus economic system (Jacobs 167).

Koolhaas does not recognize the disruptions of Jacobs’ valued interactions as the bane of existence. He embraces, even further than the ”culture of congestion,“ that humanity engages in an elaborate waltz with continuously changing trends of attractive technologies. These trends are unavoidable and architecture has the opportunity to involve and engage the products of the trends or deviate from them. Koolhaas chooses the former by exaggerating them as in his Guggenheim Las Vegas and Seattle Public Library. He does so to contradict the ever-growing practice to argue for the sake of argument against the evils of today: cars and urban sprawl. As one writer put it,

The effort to preserve the street, the hostility to the car, the hostility to all those elements that [are] inevitable elements of the twentieth century – all of this has somehow create the space for this preservation, and in the name of preservation, the conversion of entire areas in the centre of the city to fundamentally anti-urban conditions. This ought to make everyone weep (Sudjie 2).

Neither Koolhaas nor Jacobs subscribe to this trendy preservation, but instead seek city planning and design practices that accentuate the human experience as it is defined by actual people in an unplanned way.

Works Cited:

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.